|
[See item 10
below; Now Mr Big says a coax does not support a TEM Wave! What next? Ivor
Catt 8apr02] Riposte Ivor Catt. 18june02
4 The material below shows
that, if the young lecturer (or even old lecturer), given the task of
lecturing on electromagnetic theory, finds no help from the text books, he
will certainly get no help from the www if he does a Google search for
“Transverse Electromagnetic Wave”. On 1apr02, the first Google hit was this mess, see below at 1, which gives
the relative phases of E and H wrongly.
Ivor Catt 2apr02 It is interesting to
investigate the pathology of late 20th century science, at the end
of 80 years of attack by “Modern Physics”. It appears that self-styled expert
Bigelow (below), who is in the first Google ranking, remains confused as to
the relative phases of E and H in a TEM Wave. One interesting rider of the Bigelow stuff is that the Poynting Vector cannot relate to physical reality, but will be degraded to a mathematical convenience. Under Bigelow, electric energy and magnetic energy are distinct from each other. The only concession is that the one causes the other, as in “The Rolling Wave” defined and described in my Wireless World article in July 1979. Ivor Catt 2apr02 3 Try the very
basic mathematical relationship (allowing for lack of math On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Ivor
Catt wrote: There is a curious confusion here. If water is
pumped down a pipe, and there are periodically bubbles, or gaps, in the
water, then the water density alternates between zero and its full value.
There is energy in the water, and no energy in the gaps. Ivor
Catt, 11 March 2013. 5 Bigelow sticks to his idea that E and H are out of phase in a TEM Wave. Where did he get it from? Ivor Catt 2apr02 ----- Original Message ----- From: Webmaster <webboss@play-hookey.com> To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Fw: your error OK, Ivor, 6 [Addition to http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html on 2apr02] On April 1, 2002, I received an e-mail
from Ivor Catt, claiming that my statement of Law
#1 above is faulty. He pointed me to his comments on this page,
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm, which also claims that my reasoning is faulty. Now, in
view of the date of Mr. Catt's e-mail, this may all just be an April Fool's
joke. However, as it is the only challenge I have received so far, I'll give
it a serious response. In his e-mail, Mr. Catt asked me for the
mathematical basis of my claim that two quadrature
sine waves (basically a sine wave and a cosine wave) operating normally (at
right angles) to each other can possibly be combined to give a constant
value. My reply is the basic trigonometric relationship: sin˛ x + cos˛ x = 1 Based on this known relationship, we can
use vector addition of the electric (E) field and the magnetic (H) field at
any instant in time to calculate the total energy of the wave at that
instant. Such vector addition includes the trigonometric relationship quoted
here, and will result in an energy vector of constant length, rotating around
the axis of the direction of travel of the light wave as that wave
progresses. The page I pointed to above also includes the following statement attributed to Mr. Catt: Because the differential of sin is cos and the differential of cos is minus sin, half-witted mathematicians have invaded the physics of the TEM wave and imposed a spurious story that E causes H causes E. Since sin, cos and -sin are 90 degrees out of phase, part of their phoney baggage is to imply that E and H are 90 degrees out of phase. (See my article in Wireless World in March 1980.) Because the sin wave is amenable to mathematical high jinks, another part of their baggage is to imply that a TEM wave is sinusoidal. It's time we cleaned the claptrap out of electromagnetic theory. Ivor Catt, Wireless World, feb84. The thing is, mathematics is specifically
designed and intended to be a quantitatively descriptive language. The 90°
phase relationship between voltage (which generates the electric field) and
current (which generates the magnetic field) in a transmission line or
antenna [Ah. How did an antenna suddenly creep in? – I.C.] is measurable and
demonstrable. Of course, it is possible to misuse mathematics in many ways,
but it must also be possible to correctly describe a TEM wave mathematically.
I note that Mr. Catt doesn't actually state that math has no place in such a
description, but that does seem to be the implication in the above quoted
paragraph. The same paragraph also seems to imply
that Mr. Catt believes a TEM wave is not sinusoidal. [A TEM
wave might be sinusoidal. However, Oliver Heaviside developed the Telegraph
Equation for the TEM Wave. His Morse pulses, which he sent down the coax
between Newcastle and Denmark, were square, not sinusoidal. They were not
periodic **, because the sequence of words contained in the Morse kept
changing. It was not a continuous repetition of the same message. – IC.] Now, the sine waveform is the only waveform in nature that exists
entirely at a single frequency. Any finite periodic function [How
did this idea of limiting to periodic functions slip in here? See ** above. –
IC.] of any other shape can be represented by the Fourier Series as a set of sine and
cosine waves in a harmonic relationship to each other and to the basic
frequency of the non-sinusoidal waveform. The page in question lists a number of
publications and opinions, some older, some more recent. We could go back
through them and argue their merits forever without getting anywhere. What
that page does not do is state
specifically what Mr. Catt believes to be true regarding the structure of the
TEM wave [see *** below - IC]. He also offered no description of his viewpoint in his
e-mail to me; only the bare and unsupported statement that my view (according
to him, at least) is faulty. [For the record, I refer to his
false statement (which he calls a view) that E and H are 90 degrees out
of phase in a TEM wave. *** My writings are littered with the true statement
(not a view), which is that in a TEM Wave, E and H are in phase. – IC.] Sorry, Ivor, but
that's not good enough. I therefore invite Mr. Catt to respond with more detailed information, without simply referring us all to other publications in the midst of the debate. [The “more detailed information” is that in a TEM Wave, E and H are in phase. It is a serious error, not simply another view, to state otherwise. – IC.] In order for me to consider it seriously, however, I'll need two basic specifications: the specific mathematics that Mr. Catt believes correctly describe the structure of the TEM wave; and (if his equations don't show constant total energy in the wave throughout the full cycle) a clear description of where the energy goes when it isn't in the wave, and how and why it returns to the wave when it returns. If Mr. Catt believes that the TEM wave is non-sinusoidal, I'd also like to see what he believes the waveform to be, and why. Again, a mathematical description would be helpful, and make his position that much more meaningful. [I raised the problem that the Bigelow website has a false statement about the relative phase of E and H in a TEM Wave. My maths, my theories, and my opinions have nothing to do with the issue, which is my statement that Big is wrong over the relative phases of E and H in a TEM Wave. The damage Big does by making such a false statement has nothing to do with any good or damage I might do with my theories. Big has to correct the error in his website. Ivor Catt 2apr02.] *************************************** Big’s statement below (“ as it is the only challenge I have received so far “) confirms the assertion in the title of my web page http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm ; “The TEM Wave, A Lost Concept”. He says nobody else has tried to correct him. Perhaps nobody else knows any e-m theory any more. Ivor Catt 2apr02 [Addition to http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html on 2apr02] On April 1, 2002, I received an e-mail
from Ivor Catt, claiming that my statement of Law
#1 above is faulty. He pointed me to his comments on this page,
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm, which also claims that my reasoning is faulty. Now, in
view of the date of Mr. Catt's e-mail, this may all just be an April Fool's
joke. However, as it is the only challenge I have received so far, I'll give
it a serious response. 7 Ken Bigelow, OK, Ivor, 8 late 2apr02 Ivor Catt, 9 To Dr. Arnold Lynch FIEE Arnold, Things have come to a pretty pass. I have found (see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm ) that modern text books lack proper discussion of the TEM Wave. This character Mr. Big says the E field and the H field in a TEM wave are 90 degrees out of phase. He sticks to his guns. The trouble is, he is the first hit on a Google search of the www when searching for “TEM Wave”. Thus, a lecturer who is assigned to lecture on electromagnetism, who finds no rigorous information on TEM Waves (for instance information on the relative phase of E and H) in today’s text books, and then in desperation goes to the www, will get misinformation from Mr. Big. He is then bound to teach his students wrongly. Please send a letter to me about the relative phases of E and H in a TEM wave, and I will forward it to Mr. Big. Also, please do what you can to get the IEE to look into this problem, that the very basics of electromagnetic theory are disappearing in a cloud of misinformation, partly in today’s shoddy text books, and partly in the www. It is much worse than the problem over “The Catt Anomaly”. The relative phasing of E and H in a TEM Wave is absolutely fundamental. The confusion will spread to light, of course. All we seem to have today (as text book writers and pundits like Big) is a bunch of monkeys playing with maths like real monkeys might play on a typewriter. Ivor Catt. 3apr02. 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England Cc Chief Executive, IEE, Savoy Place, Strand, London. Cc Chief Executive, IEEE, 345 East 47th St., New York, N.Y. 10017 - 2394H, who then goes to the w 10 Mr Big digs deeper. Found on the website http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/tem_argument.html which is reached from the faulty website http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html on 8apr02; [Added by Mr Big
to his website] From me: Now Mr Big says a coax does not support a TEM Wave! What next? Ivor Catt 8apr02 Update, 8mar04. The gaffe Here are reasons #2 and #3 for questioning Mr. Catt's academic
credentials. A TEM wave does not
travel down a coaxial cable. above has now been removed from Mr. Small’s website. He also says he has moved forward from “the argument” as to the relative phase of E and H in a TEM wave. What a shame Big is not big enough to tell us that he was wrong, but rather dumps a fog onto the matter re coax, particularly since he attacked my competence. Someone must have been incompetent. Who was it? How long will he continue to mislead readers of his website as to the relative phase of E and H in a TEM Wave? I Catt 8mar04 http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Teaching/Courses/EFT/transmission/html/TEMWave.html .... The wave below is a TEM wave, the sort you might find in a coax cable from a signal generator to an oscilloscope. …. 10a Neil Gershenfeld, The Physics of Information Technology, pub. CUP 2000, p91; “…. Because in a hollow conductor the boundary is an equipotantial, Laplace’s equation implies that the field must vanish everywhere in the interior, therefore a TEM wave cannot be supported. Adding another conductor, such as the center (sic; NG is at MIT) in a coaxial cable, makes a TEM solution possible.” (Does this make Big Small? Hard to tell, when a maths worshipper confronts a maths pusher. Lucky Laplace was born, making it possible to send TEM waves down coax. – IC) 11 It is a shame that Mr. Big self-destructed by committing a bigger gaffe (than saying that E and H are out of phase in a TEM Wave.) He now says that a coaxial cable cannot support a TEM Wave. With this, he puts himself out of court. There is a reason for Big’s confusion, and it is not his fault. We get a hint of the reason from Big, who says that nobody else has contradicted his first error, re TEM Wave. See http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm , which says that the TEM Wave is a lost concept. This is because text books of at least the last twenty years have not taught it intelligibly, if at all. (The text books have been rotten for so long that today’s lecturer has had no access to proper information.) The same applies to coaxial cable, or perhaps the more fundamental teaching which would lead to Mr. Big being able to think clearly about coax. Thus, the gaffes on Big’s website are more important than Big, and should be retained, as evidence that to a large degree, the whole of electromagnetic has become a lost art. This is disastrous. See Einstein in ed. Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Phiosopher-Scientist, pub. Library of Living Philosophers 1949, p62; “The special theory of relativity owes its origin to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field.” Thus, loss of e-m theory leads to further collateral losses. Notice that Big keeps talking about the maths in e-m
theory, as if maths were the core of the subject. The capture of e-m theory
by mathematicians with no physical grasp is certainly one of the reasons why
e-m has become a lost art. http://www.ivorcatt.com/em_test04.htm Ivor
Catt 8apr02 12 Big says; “New! I've had a challenge to this statement. To avoid cluttering up this page with the back-and-forth argument, I've moved my side of this to this page. If anyone else wants to join the discussion, please feel free to do so. You can e-mail me at webmaster@play-hookey.com, and I will insert meaningful comments and theories into the page. By "meaningful," I mean that you must state a specific position of the question (Are the electric and magnetic waves in phase? In quadrature? Some other relationship?), you must provide the specific mathematical expressions that describe the electromagnetic wave as you claim it to be, and (if your claimed relationship doesn't show a mathematically verifiable constant energy in the wave at all instants in time) you must explain both where the energy goes when not part of the waveform, and why it comes back to the waveform. I'm perfectly willing to support and display a meaningful dialog. If you can prove your position mathematically, I may even adopt it. If you don't even try, I'll ignore your claims as baseless.” www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm This is the smoking gun
which demonstrates Big’s confusion; ) ”… you must
explain both where the energy goes when not part of the waveform, and why it
comes back to the waveform”. I.C. 13may02 |
|
An entrenched confusion. http://www.electrogravity.com/index3.html “After some thought on the matter (years previous to your question in the first part above), the H field (due to Maxwell's theory) is created by the changing E field and visa-versa. They are coincidentally created by each other simultaneously after leaving the antenna proper.” Even when they know that E and H are in phase, these guys will not let go of causality. The Lenz’s Law – type minus sign gets to them. Of course, they don’t know that the minus sign is an artefact resulting from a classic error in the sign of time, see my article “The Hidden Message in Maxwell’s Equations”, Electronics & Wireless World nov85. Available on my website at http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm . http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ekkehard_Friebe/Catt-85a.htm Ivor Catt 2apr02 “The History of Displacement Current”, Wireless World march79, at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z014.htm , leads into “The Heaviside Signal” http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm , Wireless World july79, which discusses these gentlemen’s faulty “rolling wave” view of the TEM Wave, and moves on to “The Heaviside Signal”, which Heaviside called “A slab of Energy Current”. E and H coexist, and do not cause each other. Ivor Catt 2apr02 |
|
__________________________________________________________________ |